Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Planning commission postpones vote on reverse‑channel (halo) wall‑sign code to study brightness and color limits
Summary
Peachtree City staff proposed a text amendment to allow reverse-channel (halo/backlit) wall signs; commissioners closed the public hearing with no public speakers and voted to postpone action so staff can research lumens and color‑temperature language and return with recommended limits.
City staff asked the Peachtree City Planning Commission to recommend a text amendment to Chapter 66 (Signage) to clarify that wall signs may be internally illuminated only when designed as reverse‑channel/halo/backlit wall signs, and to add a corresponding definition.
Staff member (S3) said the item was initiated by city council on Feb. 27 and is scheduled for possible council action on May 21. Staff noted the city's current ordinance (cited as section 66-5 16 in the staff presentation) generally prohibits internally illuminated signs but that reverse-channel installations have been permitted or installed at several locations without an explicit ordinance allowance.
After staff presented the proposed definition and examples of the halo effect, the commission opened the public hearing; no members of the public spoke. Commissioners then questioned technical limits and policy tradeoffs. Commissioner Allen (S4) asked whether the language is tight enough to prevent high-brightness or color‑cycling displays. Staff (S3) confirmed flashing, blinking, fluctuating or otherwise animated signs would be prohibited, and that color‑cycling (changing colors) would not be permitted. Staff also said there is currently no lumen (brightness) limit in the draft language.
Commissioners discussed whether to limit future backlit signage to a narrow range of "white" color temperatures (cool white vs. warm soft yellow) to avoid multicolored or neon‑style displays and to respect corporate branding for existing tenants in annexed areas (Target, Publix were cited as examples). Several commissioners favored giving staff discretion to work with the city engineer to craft specific language on spectrum/lumen ranges; others cautioned against vague references to "best practice."
Commissioner Allen moved to postpone approval of the signage language in section 66-15.6 until staff could research optimal lighting language that would prefer cool white or warm soft yellow tones, and that would recommend limits on reuse of backlit lighting and suggested lumen and color‑temperature ranges. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. Staff said they could bring recommended language back to the commission at the May 11 meeting so the commission’s recommendation could still reach city council by May 21 if appropriate.
No public testimony was recorded on the amendment and no formal numeric lumen or color-temperature limits were adopted. The postponement directs staff to draft recommended limits and return with proposed language for commissioner consideration before any recommendation to city council.
